Hillary Clinton: Feminism, Discrimination, and the Dissenting Opinion

Dear Readers,
I had planned on this being a post about the purpose of government.  The ongoing conversation about the American presidential race, and particular events of the week have made me change my mind.  Instead, I have decided to address questions of discrimination, particularly gender discrimination as it has come to the forefront in the recent primaries.

Fair warning: as I am a conservative and a Republican, much of this criticism will be of the Democratic party/ candidates.  I am aware of examples of discrimination, particularly in regard to the suspicion toward Muslims in my party.  I am also aware, however, that the Republican party is consistently subject to ongoing criticisms of its lack of diversity, questions that I believe could be more appropriately leveled at the current Democratic establishment.

My personal bias admitted upfront, let's begin.

I first wanted to address the role that gender has played in the Democratic primary.  Hillary Clinton has put herself forward as the candidate for women, consistently playing the gender card in response to questions like "How would you be different as president from Barack Obama," and "Many of your opponents regard you as part of the government 'establishment,' how would you respond to such critics?"  In each case, Mrs. Clinton's response was centered around her gender; her policies would obviously be different from the current president's because she is a woman (and would be the first woman president), and she cannot be regarded as part of the government establishment because her gender automatically makes her an outsider.  As a feminist, I am appalled at both those answers.  They reduce Mrs. Clinton to nothing more than her physiology; she has nothing more to offer in regard to policy than the fact that she is anatomically different from the current people in power?  Is this a healthy model for women, to assert that her only electable characteristic is her gender?

The sexism of the Democratic party continues, however, in the words of those who should be feminism's greatest supporters!  Madeleine Albright's support of Mrs. Clinton has been particularly offensive, "Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!” she said. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the supreme court make all the difference. It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other."  The last line in particular has garnered a fair bit of criticism over the last few days.  I understand it is a trademark line for Ms. Albright, but in the context of the speech, one that is remarkably sexist.  Let's break down the remarks.  First, Ms. Albright asserts that young women HAVE to support Mrs. Clinton.  There is no more fundamentally discriminatory message than to say that a group of people have to behave in a certain way because of their common physical characteristics.  Imagine if Senator Marco Rubio came out and said, "All Hispanics have to support me because I will appoint Hispanic supreme court justices."  There would be public outcry, and the scandal would destroy that campaign.  Yet this is what Ms. Albright would say about Hillary Clinton... that all women have to vote for her because she is a woman.  Now take the comments about the "special place in hell."  Again, I recognize that this quotation is a part of her brand of feminism, but consider what it says.  In the context of the remarks, Ms. Albright is saying that if you are a woman and you do not vote for Mrs. Clinton, you are betraying feminism, you are betraying women.  This is hugely insulting to me.  I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton, not on the basis of her gender, but on the basis of her lack of integrity and her policy record.  The statement assumes that women are one issue voters; that we can and should only care about women's issues.  It is reductive toward the female voter who is told she should be more concerned in the election process with making sure other women are always treated perfectly than with the economy, national security, terrorism, the budget, healthcare, border control, gun rights, religious liberty, welfare, and foreign policy.  Is a woman not allowed to have differing opinions on those critical policy issues because in doing so she is "not helping other women"?!

This is the lie about discrimination that the Democratic party has been telling for years.  Not just about women, but about minorities and young people too.  The Democratic party promotes itself as the party of the future; the party that embraces social justice for the marginalized and promotes the beliefs and opinions that will change the world.  To some extent, this has been true, but it is becoming less and less so because the Democrats are too organized, too institutionalized, too hidebound to effectively represent diversity.  In seeking to create movements for social change (like the feminist movement), the movers and shakers had to codify a set of principles that they stood for, and use those principles as a platform for change.  But in doing so, anyone who does not agree with those principles is automatically relegated to the outside; creating a new disenfranchised group.  The agents for justice become the oppressors as they seek to silence any dissenting voice.  This oppression can be even more dangerous than that which came before, because the members of the institution for change believe, wholeheartedly, in the purity of their own motives and the inherent rightness of their cause.  It effectively becomes an extremist cult seeking to punish dissenting views because it is so convinced of the purity of its own principles. 

A similar situation is evident in regard to the Democratic party's approach to race, where it is assumed that people of a certain ethnic background will always vote in support of a particular group of candidates, and those who advocate a dissenting opinion are branded with racial epitaphs and scourged as traitors to the cause.  Nowhere is this discrimination more ingrained, however, than in the rampant ageism of both parties.  For Democrats, the race will be decided by who gets the vote of young people.  For Republicans, by those who can appeal to "conservatives"  a.k.a.  middle aged, middle class, religious people with families.  As an educated Millennial, as a woman, as a feminist, as a Californian, and as someone who has traveled and studied in Europe, I tick certain boxes that mean I "should" be voting for Hillary Clinton or perhaps Bernie Sanders.  This is the danger of political discrimination; to the candidates, I am nothing more than a race, gender, age bracket, a demographic that they must win in order to be elected.  Such an approach is harmful to those who support liberty and equality.  There can not truly be equality for women if the fact that one is a woman is still relevant to one's electability (either positively or negatively).  There cannot be racial equality if one has to run on a platform of race, nor can there be productive conversations cross-generationally if one's age is a constant qualifier for the conversation.

This is why, if it came down to it, I would support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in a general election.  I don't like Trump; I think he is a sexist pig, a loud, overbearing, abrasive personality.  However, I think his sexism is innocuous: he is not going to actively promote policies that are oppressive to women, and I think that he is a capable manager whose force of personality might be useful in uniting the government and achieving policy results.  Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is going to promote an environment in Washington that is antagonistic toward conservatives, toward the dissenting opinion, and will introduce policies that directly encroach on the freedom of those who disagree with her.  Am I a bad feminist for choosing the one over the other?  I do not think so.  I instead choose to see my decision as acting within those principles feminism supports, to choose, as an independent, educated woman to vote for the candidate who more accurately represents my principles and my beliefs, not my anatomy.

Well, back to reality!